For a long time, I thought of the blockchain as almost synonymous with cryptocurrencies, so as I saw stuff like “Odyssey” and “lbry” appearing and being “based on the blockchain”, my first thought was that it was another crypto scam. Then, I just got reminded of it and started looking more into it, and it just seemed like regular torrenting. For example, what’s the big innovation separating Odyssey from Peertube, which is also decentralized and also uses P2P? And what part of it does the blockchain really play, that couldn’t be done with regular P2P? More generally, and looking at the futur, does the blockchain offer new possibilities that the fediverse or pre-existing protocols don’t have?

  • manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can say of the top of my head the JPM and AMEX are running internal ledgers but there are many more, IBM and Accenture co-developed a system called Hyperledger which was given to the Linux Foundation. Its a tool kit for developing and deploying ledger applications primarily targeted at internal corps.

    One of the cases these are good for is an easier to manage rights and asset control systems than many products you would pay more for and with less futzing with IAM, LADP or AD.

    • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hyperledger is a private “blockchain”. I write blockchain in quotes because it’s not really a blockchain. There’s not really a distributed consensus in a private “blockchain”. It’s like taking the concept blockchain, and strips not only down the bad parts but also all the good parts.

      Sure, there are multiple actors signing each entry, but who has elected these actors? A central authority of course!

      It’s decentralised in the same way a git repo is decentralised. Mostly because Hyperledger is basically a git repo.

      Most of the times when a company says they’re using blockchain, they’re either:

      • using a private “blockchain”, which is not really a blockchain.
      • not actually using blockchain, but say they do for marketing reasons.
      • a Ponzi scheme.
      • manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we are grasping for new words here really, its only been in the last few years orgs have been exploring actual deployments internally.

        I do have a very reductive definition of “blockchain” as I believe it is what it says. what is considered “satoshi’s vision” includes a blockchain system but it does not define the word.

        HL is a blank canvas that allows you to deploy whatever consensus you want including those commonly found in public chains, it is entirely possible to run a hyperledger instance that is compatible with any network you would like, presuming you would want that effort.

    • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      These sound more like publicity stunts than anything else. There isn’t really much value in running a private Blockchain. At that point it lost all value a Blockchain would provide. Who are you protecting yourself against?

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need a distributed untrusted consensus algo for internal ledgers. That’s trusted parties only.

      • manitcor@lemmy.intai.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        for the most part yes, there are interesting regulatory scenarios that are on idea boards, mostly they want the secure write and a form of DiD being provided. these system provide some interesting legal scenarios with regards to accounting for assets in escrow on behalf of clients. In one form they are liabilities, in another, they are technically under the customers control.